BAGGA SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 8,000/- on the basis of two pronotes, one for Rs. 1,000/- dated 16th February, 1964, and the other for Rs. 5,000/- dated 21st April, 1964. The amount sued for also includes interest. The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the pronotes were payable at a specified place and, therefore, required presentment. As they were not presented to him before filing the suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Some other pleas were also taken by the defendant but it is not necessary to reproduce them here as they do not survive in second appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate Court affirmed the decree. The defendant has come up in second appeal.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the pronotes were payable at a specified place and, therefore, before institution of the suit, their presentment was necessary. He further argues that as no such presentment in the present case was made, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the pronotes were payable on demand and, therefore, no presentment was necessary under the Exception to Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He next submits that even if the said Exception is not applicable the appellant has alleged to have made payment of the amount and, as such, in view of the provisions of Section 76(c) of the Act, the presentment was not necessary.